Is Democracy great or what? What a shining example, Egypt, for the entire world. Imposing Western institutions and electoral practices in the Land of the Pharaoh has an inevitable outcome. The hubris of the international community and the fallacy that a globalist model for providing political cover for the control of the unwashed masses, just took a detour. Liberation revolt is not supposed to be an option. Tell that to the twenty million plus that gathered together to just say no. Their message should not go unheeded to the great bodies of parliamentary debate elsewhere. Yet, in the end, these legislative corpses just follow orders from the masters who really call the shots.

Well, the Egyptian army projects the image of the protector of the people, but if you look a little deeper, the military brass is accustomed to getting their M1A1 tanks and F16’s. General Abdul Fattah al-Sisi may just be the next Gamal Abdel Nasser. Whoever, attains the figurehead post, ala General Muhammad Naguib, of the 1952 coup, this Arab Spring will be strongly in the camp of the general’s staff.

General Abdul Fattah al-Sisi speaks:

"In the name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate. Oh great people of Egypt!

As the armed forces cannot just turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the movement and call of the Egyptian people, they have invoked their patriotic, and not political, role.

The armed forces themselves were, still are and will continue to be the first to announce their need to remain distant from political action.

Relying on their insightful vision, the armed forces have realised that the Egyptian people, who are calling on us to come to their support, are not in fact calling on us to assume power.

Rather, they have called on us to perform public service and to secure essential protection of the demands of their revolution. Such is the message which the armed forces have received from across Egypt's urban centres, cities, villages."

Before one concludes that a military intervention is unfortunate, much less an act of betrayal, the account describing Hosni Mubarak and American Foreign Policy, is instructive. "It is difficult to embrace or have sympathy for a regime that traded rendition torture for a steady flow of military and foreign aid. Mubarak, like all favored despots, has no qualms of conscience when it comes to following orders, from a higher imposing force. Now he is paying the price of being a collaborator of the American Empire."

The conflict-ridden Mohamed Morsi regime earned the wrath of Dar Merit, a Cairo publishing enterprise. Their editorial is telling.

"The revolt also ushered in an Islamist-led government that he and other literati view as an autocratic group bent on imposing conservative social views on Egypt's 84 million people - including the liberals who allied with them against Mubarak.

President Mohamed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood may have come to power through the ballot box, but for Hashem and liberals like him, their promulgation of religious values is totalitarian and divisive, and reason enough to take to the streets on Sunday, the anniversary of Morsi's inauguration.

"This is not a democratic force that believes in elections and the transfer of power," Hashem, 55, said in an interview in his dusty, book-lined office around the corner from Tahrir Square, center of the 2011 uprising.

He said Egyptian Islamism "believes in its own religious authority and that there is no authority above it."

Nonetheless, dismissing the sentiment expressed by the Muslim Brotherhood works against the tide of discontent that the ultra Islamist demands as the price of their struggle. Essentially Jihad is an effort to practice religion in the face of oppression and persecution. However, when this conviction clashes with moderate secular values or Coptic Christianity, the forces of extreme interpretations and pursuits of Islamic ideology, destroys chances of consensus.

On stage comes Adly Mansour. USA Today describes him as a "little-known constitutional judge appointed years ago by ousted former president Hosni Mubarak who has now been drafted to serve as Egypt's interim president."

The Guardian warns that Egypt prepares for backlash as Morsi allies reject new regime.

"At his inauguration on Thursday, Mansour, who was appointed as head of the constitutional court on Sunday, said this week's protests had "corrected the path of the glorious revolution that took place on 25 January 2011", and that continued revolution was needed until "we stop producing tyrants."

He also reached out to members of the Muslim Brotherhood, calling the organisation "part of the fabric of Egyptian society".

"They are just one of its parties and they are invited to integrate. If they answer the call, they will be welcomed."

Mansour’s overture to engage in dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood is simply a reorganization of reality. The alternative is a bloody civil war that only benefits the forces that want regional instability and permanent deployment of international forces to oversee the interest of Israel and big oil.

The public outcry at Tahrir plaza need not turn into Martyr Square. However, the guiding hand of another failed intervention is written all over the frustration and intensity of disillusioned Egyptians.

The often insightful, F. William Engdahl concludes in the article, Washington Islamist Strategy in Crisis as Morsi Toppled. Egypt Protest directed against US.

"Perhaps the most significant aspect of the mass mobilization of protesters in recent weeks that culminated in the decision by the military to actively take control was the clear anti-Washington character of the street protests. Demonstrators carried hand-made posters denouncing Obama and his pro-Muslim Brotherhood Cairo Ambassador, Anne Patterson.

The crucial question now will be what Obama’s response to the collapse of Washington’s Arab Spring. The Arab Spring of yesterday has just become Washington’s Siberian Winter nightmare."

So what lesson from these massive demonstrations, should America learn? Start with the parable of The Blind Men and the Elephant in Islamic thought. Ghazzali refers to the tale in a discussion on the problem of human action, a problem in which the inadequacy of natural reason becomes most evident.

"A community of blind men once heard that an extraordinary beast called an elephant had been brought into the country. Since they did not know what it looked like and had never heard its name, they resolved to obtain a picture, and the knowledge they desired, by feeling the beast - the only possibility that was open to them! They went in search of the elephant, and when they had found it, they felt its body. One touched its leg, the other a tusk, the third an ear, and in the belief that they now knew the elephant, they returned home. But when they were questioned by the other blind men, their answers differed. The one who had felt the leg maintained that the elephant was nothing other than a pillar, extremely rough to the touch, and yet strangely soft. The one who had caught hold of the tusk denied this and described the elephant as, hard and smooth, with nothing soft or rough about it, more over the beast was by no means as stout as a pillar, but rather had the shape of a post ['amud]. The third, who had held the ear in his hands, spoke: "By my faith, it is both soft and rough." Thus he agreed with one of the others, but went on to say: Nevertheless, it is neither like a post nor a pillar, but like a broad, thick piece of leather." Each was right in a certain sense, since each of them communicated that part of the elephant he had comprehended, but none was able describe the elephant as it really was; for all three of them were unable to comprehend the entire form of the elephant."

So much for the Egyptian democratic fiasco, what is the difference in the American version? The dimwitted and unreasoning colliding of diametrically opposed factions plague both countries. The only meaningful difference is that the Egyptians are willing to overthrow their latest tyrant, but Americans are too timid to do the same. Political consensus is as allusive to a recollection deficient public as the memory of a pachyderm is keen to the kindness or abuse of their trainer.

The idiots that export the motto, "make the world safe for democracy", do not deserve the privilege of living in a free environment. The cages that incarcerate the animals, who think that the American empire is exempt from self-imposed carnage and suffering, need to test the lock on their jailhouse door. It was predictable that the Arab Spring was merely a public relations campaign that camouflages the internal Sunni and Shia split. The motivation to seek a peaceful accord is far less than the desire to inflict their own coup d'état upon opponents.

It is no wonder that military power dominates the Middle Eastern culture. At some point, the varied ayatollahs will come to understand that their continuous conflicts have an imprint, made in America, which prevents internal resolutions among feuding cousins.